BIGUN 1,483 #1 March 28, 2009 Here's my observation for the day: 1. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use marijuana are the same one's who want more gun legislation. 2. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use guns are the same one's who want more marijuana legislation. Kinda interesting... Thoughts?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #2 March 28, 2009 Good observation.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #3 March 28, 2009 QuoteKinda interesting... Thoughts? I think I don't fit into your observation. I'm for less legislation of marijuana, but I don't want more gun legislation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #4 March 28, 2009 QuoteHere's my observation for the day: 1. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use marijuana are the same one's who want more gun legislation. 2. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use guns are the same one's who want more marijuana legislation. Kinda interesting... Thoughts? Do you have evidence to support your claims about the respective majorities? I'm not sure I believe such a correlation exists.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #5 March 28, 2009 Let's call it a Qualitative Analysis in Social Science. Kinda like the Hawthorne effect,... ya know where they "observed" then... No quantitative analysis, just some no jumping Saturday thoughts for discussion.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #6 March 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteKinda interesting... Thoughts? I think I don't fit into your observation. I'm for less legislation of marijuana, but I don't want more gun legislation. That makes at least two of us."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 March 28, 2009 Quote Quote Kinda interesting... Thoughts? I think I don't fit into your observation. I'm for less legislation of marijuana, but I don't want more gun legislation. I'm, um..... I forgot what I was gonna say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #8 March 28, 2009 I think you're drawing conclusions based on facts unknown. I especially dislike your use of the words "freedom and liberty" in quotes as, I believe, you're attempting to be "ironic" rather than factual. Not that you can't do that, it's just confusing.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 March 28, 2009 Quote Do you have evidence to support your claims about the respective majorities? I'm not sure I believe such a correlation exists. Of course it exists. The law and order GOP believes in freedoms, unless it's the freedom to enjoy yourself. Whereas the Democrats are all about self gratification, but less keen on other rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #10 March 28, 2009 Maybe the correlation is not idealistic. It's probabably a functonal aspect that isn't in any way political. Someone who likes using dangerous weapons may have a dicipline and application that is not required for MJ users. And maybe MJ users do not need the extra rigidity required if they don't go hunting. Maybe subconsciously, it annoys both parties. It's weak, but I don't got a better example._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #11 March 28, 2009 QuoteI think you're drawing conclusions based on facts unknown. I especially dislike your use of the words "freedom and liberty" in quotes as, I believe, you're attempting to be "ironic" rather than factual. Not that you can't do that, it's just confusing. The original post clearly stated it was "just" an observation and is not based in fact... Did you have an "observation" or "opinion" on the two scenarios or was it just about the "quotes?"Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #12 March 28, 2009 Well, I based my observation on listening to people who are on the right and are adamant against the legalization of MJ and those on the left that are for increased gun control. One can see the trend in just scrolling thru the threads here in Speaker's Corner. For me, it was just a morning observation while scrolling the threads, drinking coffee, knowing most of the skydivers and which side of the political spectrum they're on... and just found it interesting that both sides can give the "appearance" of wanting to legislate the other side.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #13 March 28, 2009 I noticed that too. I couldn't come up with a reason why its like that other than trying to attack what the other likes. Kind of like a failed relationship. Maybe its this simple and I'm looking too deep into it._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #14 March 28, 2009 QuoteThat makes at least two of us. Would you classify yourself as a centrist?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #15 March 28, 2009 My first thought was....wtf is he talking about? But then I remembered I live in CA. Loosest MJ laws in the country. Most strict gun laws in the country. Another good example of your observation is Canada.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #16 March 28, 2009 QuoteHere's my observation for the day: 1. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use marijuana are the same one's who want more gun legislation. 2. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use guns are the same one's who want more marijuana legislation. Kinda interesting... Thoughts? Thoughts ... I'm an outlier of this profile. I believe drugs and guns are not the root of the problem and thus legislating them gives us a little temporary safety at the cost of essential liberty."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #17 March 28, 2009 QuoteDid you have an "observation" or "opinion" on the two scenarios or was it just about the "quotes?" Mostly about the use of the words in quotes. That said, I think somebody like Ted Nugent or Willie Nelson throws off your theory quite a bit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #18 March 28, 2009 QuoteKinda interesting... Thoughts? I'm pro-choice on everything. Check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #19 March 29, 2009 QuoteHere's my observation for the day: 1. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use marijuana are the same one's who want more gun legislation. 2. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use guns are the same one's who want more marijuana legislation. Kinda interesting... Thoughts? I think we have too many drug and gun laws. Law abiding adults should be able to buy whatever they want in both categories and use the products where ever it's safe for other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Broke 0 #20 March 29, 2009 YOu must not talk to many LibertariansDivot your source for all things Hillbilly. Anvil Brother 84 SCR 14192 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #21 March 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteKinda interesting... Thoughts? I'm pro-choice on everything. Check out the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The only thing I missed was that I support Universal Conscription. You WILL undergo 6 months of training and 1 year of active service upon reaching the age of majority in order to achieve citizenship. This can be Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force, or the Park Service or the Coast Guard or whatever. Beyond that, I consider Governmental entities to be poor servants and terrible masters. If this is a Democracy, they work for me but keep forgetting that fact. A simple criterion is that nothing should be proscribed unless it's worse than alcohol or tobacco. Then again, compared to alcohol and tobacco, heroin is like a gift from God (my mother, an RN, used to administer heroin <"Diamorphine;" diacetylmorphine = heroin> to patients in a hospice). I'm a hell of a lot more concerned with someone in the oncoming lane with a significant amount of scotch in them than if they had smoked a joint. With drugs (licit and illicit) and weapons of any type, the key is accountability. There should be no consideration whatsoever given to arguments such as "I didn't know it was loaded," or "I didn't know what I was doing - I was drunk." The law of unintended results applies to the prohibition process in general - in addition to failing to solve the perceived problem, it spawns a host of more virulent problems as well. I do not recommend the use of intoxicants, and advise against misbehaving with items useful as weapons, but consider legal bans to be an exercise in futility at the very best. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 March 29, 2009 Quote, the key is accountability. Holy crap, you mean, ACTUALLY, holding people responsible for their true actions rather than taking away their freedoms without reason (pre-emptively) just because someone has a political position or unreasonable fear they are pushing? I don't know, we are fast moving away from those kinds of morals........ ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #23 March 29, 2009 I've noticed two things myself: 1. Right-wingers are prone to put a label on everyone and classify people based on deep-seated predjudices. 2. Left-wingers are prone to saying "hey, I wouldn't want someone to judge me, so I'll just take another hit (whiffffff)" Personally, I think there's too much regulation of both guns and drugs and not enough law enforcement of the criminal element in both categories. And I consider myself a liberal.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #24 March 29, 2009 Quote1. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use marijuana are the same one's who want more gun legislation. 2. A majority of those who champion for the "freedom and liberty" and less legislation to use guns are the same one's who want more marijuana legislation. ... Thoughts? Pretty much all folks want to believe that they’re on the side of “freedom and liberty.” (Same thing with believing they’re on the side of behaving responsibly). Very few want to conceive of/perceive themselves as being on the side of “submission and tyranny” (or irresponsibility). I also suspect that all folks in (1) don’t have the same reasons or depth of knowledge … and similarly for (2) reasoning varies. If one wants to argue that ethics/morals should guide or have some role in policy, what are the underlying ethics? Is there something inherently *bad* or *wrong* about recreational drugs? (I suspect for some there is … based solely on the fact that they are illegal. Somewhat tautological … but an easy pragmatic approach.) Is there an inherent liberty (as an ethical concept) to affect one’s brain chemistry, for non-medical reasons? Does free will include the right to alter temporarily or permanently my own brain chemistry via non-endogenous means, i.e., ingesting/inhaling/injecting something rather than one of the neurochemicals generated by my brain? From a high ethics perspective, does autonomy of personhood and autonomy of thought argue for one to have the choice to do whatever one wants to one’s brain? When one learns something, the brain is changed by forming new connections between neurons (plasticity). Does it matter whether externally- or internally-generated chemicals induce the change in the brain? Or is there an inherent ethics of prohibition because drugs affect one’s ability to think as oneself, e.g., a non-medical augmentation? What are the core ethics arguments? Or do we need to go to applied-ethics and look at potential impacts on society? Do the consequences for the group from irresponsible individuals outweigh the potential for even a single responsible person? I.e., if using “MTE” causes 99 out of 100 folks to act like an unproductive moron engaging in behavior that puts others at risk -- but 1 out of 100 uses it responsibly and productively -- is it ethically reasonable … or even ethically right to prohibit it? What if it’s 999 out of 1000? When is the good of the group/society seen as legitimately taking precedence over the right or infringement on rights of the individual? Is it an issue of prohibition or harm reduction? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 March 29, 2009 Marg -- I normally see you as a very objective person. You talking about "ethics" is, for me, kinda different. Generally speaking, I don't like the concept of people's subjective feelings having a huge influence on my freedoms. How do you reconcile ethics with objectivity?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
